Report 2015-115 All Recommendation Responses

Report 2015-115: Dually Involved Youth: The State Cannot Determine the Effectiveness of Efforts to Serve Youth Who Are Involved in Both the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems (Release Date: February 2016)

Recommendation for Legislative Action

To ensure that county CWS and probation agencies are able to identify their populations of dually involved youth, the Legislature should require Social Services to implement a function within the statewide case management system that will enable county CWS and probation agencies to identify dually involved youth.

Description of Legislative Action

Assembly Bill 1911 (Chapter 637, Statutes of 2016), in part, requires the State Department of Social Services, on or before January 1, 2019, to implement a function within the applicable case management system that will enable county child welfare agencies and county probation departments to identify youth involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system who are within their counties, and to issue instruction to all counties on the manner in which to completely and consistently track the involvement of these youth in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system.

  • Legislative Action Current As-of: November 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Legislation Enacted


Recommendation for Legislative Action

To ensure that county CWS and probation agencies are able to identify their populations of dually involved youth, the Legislature should require Social Services to issue guidance to the counties on how to use the statewide case management system to track joint assessment hearing information completely and consistently for these youth.

Description of Legislative Action

Assembly Bill 1911 (Chapter 637, Statutes of 2016), in part, requires the California Department of Social Services, on or before January 1, 2019, to implement a function within the applicable case management system that will enable county child welfare agencies and county probation departments to identify youth involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system who are within their counties, and to issue instruction to all counties on the manner in which to completely and consistently track the involvement of these youth in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system.

  • Legislative Action Current As-of: November 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Legislation Enacted


Recommendation for Legislative Action

To better understand and serve the dually involved youth population, the Legislature should require the Judicial Council to work with county CWS and probation agencies and state representatives to establish a committee, or to work with an existing committee, to develop a common identifier counties can use to reconcile data across CWS and probation data systems statewide.

Description of Legislative Action

Assembly Bill 1911 (Chapter 637, Statutes of 2016), in part, requires the Judicial Council to convene a committee comprised of stakeholders involved in serving the needs of dependents or wards of the juvenile court, as specified. The statute further requires the committee, by January 1, 2018, to develop and report to the Legislature its recommendations to facilitate and enhance comprehensive data and outcome tracking for the State's youth involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system, and requires the recommendations to include specified information including standardized definitions related these youth.

  • Legislative Action Current As-of: November 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Legislation Enacted


Recommendation for Legislative Action

To better understand and serve the dually involved youth population, the Legislature should require the Judicial Council to work with county CWS and probation agencies and state representatives to establish a committee, or to work with an existing committee, to develop standardized definitions for terms related to the populations of youth involved in both the CWS and probation systems, such as dually involved, crossover, and dual status youth.

Description of Legislative Action

Assembly Bill 1911 (Chapter 637, Statutes of 2016), in part, requires the Judicial Council to convene a committee comprised of stakeholders involved in serving the needs of dependents or wards of the juvenile court, as specified. The statute further requires the committee, by January 1, 2018, to develop and report to the Legislature its recommendations to facilitate and enhance comprehensive data and outcome tracking for the State's youth involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system, and requires the recommendations to include specified information including standardized definitions related these youth.

  • Legislative Action Current As-of: November 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Legislation Enacted


Recommendation for Legislative Action

To better understand and serve the dually involved youth population, the Legislature should require the Judicial Council to work with county CWS and probation agencies and state representatives to establish a committee, or to work with an existing committee, to identify and define outcomes for counties to track for dually involved youth, such as outcomes related to recidivism and education.

Description of Legislative Action

Assembly Bill 1911 (Chapter 637, Statutes of 2016), in part, requires the Judicial Council to convene a committee comprised of stakeholders involved in serving the needs of dependents or wards of the juvenile court, as specified. The statute further requires the committee, by January 1, 2018, to develop and report to the Legislature its recommendations to facilitate and enhance comprehensive data and outcome tracking for the State's youth involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system, and requires the recommendations to include specified information including standardized definitions related these youth.

  • Legislative Action Current As-of: November 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Legislation Enacted


Recommendation for Legislative Action

To better understand and serve the dually involved youth population, the Legislature should require the Judicial Council to work with county CWS and probation agencies and state representatives to establish a committee, or to work with an existing committee, to establish baselines and goals for those outcomes.

Description of Legislative Action

Assembly Bill 1911 (Chapter 637, Statutes of 2016), in part, requires the Judicial Council to convene a committee comprised of stakeholders involved in serving the needs of dependents or wards of the juvenile court, as specified. The statute further requires the committee, by January 1, 2018, to develop and report to the Legislature its recommendations to facilitate and enhance comprehensive data and outcome tracking for the State's youth involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system, and requires the recommendations to include specified information including standardized definitions related these youth.

  • Legislative Action Current As-of: November 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Legislation Enacted


Recommendation for Legislative Action

To better understand and serve the dually involved youth population, the Legislature should require the Judicial Council to work with county CWS and probation agencies and state representatives to establish a committee, or to work with an existing committee, to share the common identifier, definitions, and outcomes with the Legislature, for their consideration to require counties to utilize and track these elements.

Description of Legislative Action

Assembly Bill 1911 (Chapter 637, Statutes of 2016), in part, requires the Judicial Council to convene a committee comprised of stakeholders involved in serving the needs of dependents or wards of the juvenile court, as specified. The statute further requires the committee, by January 1, 2018, to develop and report to the Legislature its recommendations to facilitate and enhance comprehensive data and outcome tracking for the State's youth involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system, and requires the recommendations to include specified information including standardized definitions related these youth.

  • Legislative Action Current As-of: November 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Legislation Enacted


Recommendation for Legislative Action

If the State enacts data-related requirements, it should require the Judicial Council's committee to compile and publish county data two years after the start of county data collection requirements.

Description of Legislative Action

Assembly Bill 1911 (Chapter 637, Statutes of 2016), in part, requires the Judicial Council to convene a committee comprised of stakeholders involved in serving the needs of dependents or wards of the juvenile court, as specified. The statute further requires the committee, by January 1, 2018, to develop and report to the Legislature its recommendations to facilitate and enhance comprehensive data and outcome tracking for the State's youth involved in both the child welfare system and the juvenile justice system, and requires the recommendations to include specified information including standardized definitions related these youth.

  • Legislative Action Current As-of: November 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Legislation Enacted


Recommendation #9 To: Alameda County

Alameda County probation department should update its existing procedures to ensure that its staff are accurately recording family reunification service components within the statewide case management system.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

The Alameda County Probation Department (ACPD) intends to comply with the recommendation regarding accurately recording family reunification service components within the statewide case management system. The Probation Department is continually learning and addressing its internal capacity to comply with CWS/CMS regulations. ACPD is in the process of writing policy and intends to add a robust section related to foster care responsibilities - which was absent from the Department's previous policy manual. In an effort to increase our learning capacities, ACPD is participating on the state collaborative team from Child Welfare Digital Services that is developing the interface specifications for county juvenile probation systems for the Child Welfare Services - New System (CWS-NS).

The Probation Department is in the process of procuring new laptops for all staff that will enable staff to access CWS-NS directly, without the need for a token for access. The requirement of token access has prevented some Department employees from accessing the system, because the Department has a limited number of tokens. An implementation plan for the new token-less system has not yet been developed, nor has the policy. In the interim, on or before December 1, 2017, staff will receive written instructions for how to record family reunification service efforts in CWS/CMS. Once CWS-NS becomes fully operational, the Department will develop a policy to outline all documentation requirements for probation foster care youth.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 12/01/2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Per Alameda County's response, its implementation of this recommendation is currently pending.


1-Year Agency Response

Alameda County stated that it will not provide any responses to the audit.

  • Estimated Completion Date:
  • Response Date: April 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

We stand by our recommendation to Alameda County probation department that it should update its existing procedures for recording family reunification service components within the statewide case management system. As we noted on page 26 of our report, its staff did not record family reunifications into the statewide case management system accurately. It is essential for county staff to accurately record and update the youth's case plan goal in the statewide case management system so that information on goals and outcomes can be compared across counties.


6-Month Agency Response

Alameda County stated that it will not provide any responses to the audit.

  • Estimated Completion Date:
  • Response Date: December 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

We stand by our recommendation to Alameda County probation department that it should update its existing procedures for recording family reunification service components within the statewide case management system. As we noted on page 26 of our report, its staff did not record family reunifications into the statewide case management system accurately. It is essential for county staff to accurately record and update the youth's case plan goal in the statewide case management system so that information on goals and outcomes can be compared across counties.


60-Day Agency Response

Alameda County stated that it will not provide any responses to the audit.

  • Estimated Completion Date:
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Will Not Implement

We stand by our recommendation to Alameda County probation department that it should update its existing procedures for recording family reunification service components within the statewide case management system. As we noted on page 26 of our report, its staff did not record family reunifications into the statewide case management system accurately. It is essential for county staff to accurately record and update the youth's case plan goal in the statewide case management system so that information on goals and outcomes can be compared across counties.


Recommendation #10 To: Sacramento County

Sacramento County probation department should update its existing procedures to ensure that its staff are accurately recording family reunification service components within the statewide case management system.

1-Year Agency Response

We have a dedicated clerical staff in placement that input family reunification service components within the statewide case management system.

  • Completion Date: December 2016
  • Response Date: February 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented

Sacramento County probation provided a copy of its updated procedures that outline the process for recording family reunification service components within the statewide case management system.


6-Month Agency Response

We have a dedicated clerical staff in placement that input family reunification service components within the statewide case management system.

  • Estimated Completion Date: October 17, 2016
  • Response Date: August 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

Per Sacramento's response, it will not fully implement this recommendation until October 17, 2016.


60-Day Agency Response

Probation Staff is currently developing updated procedures.

  • Estimated Completion Date: September 30, 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #11 To: Alameda County

To identify their population of dually involved youth, Alameda County's CWS and probation agencies should designate the data system they will use for tracking the dates and results of joint assessment hearings.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

Alameda County Department of Children and Family Services inputs all data related to child welfare in the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS). Currently, the California Department of Social Services is in the process of creating a new child welfare database, currently referenced as "New System." It is anticipated that when the New System database is complete, there will be an ability to track dually involved youth and the results of their court hearings. When that is completed Alameda County Department of Children and Family Services will put information regarding dually involved youth into the "New System" database.

  • Estimated Completion Date: TBD by CDSS

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Per Alameda County's response, its implementation of this recommendation is currently pending.


1-Year Agency Response

Alameda County stated that it will not provide any responses to the audit.

  • Estimated Completion Date:
  • Response Date: April 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

We stand by our recommendation that Alameda County's CWS and probation agencies should designate the data system they will use for tracking the dates and results of joint assessment hearings. As we noted on page 24 of our report, county staff could not accurately determine the total number of dependency cases with joint assessment hearings or the results of those hearings because they did not always track this information. As a result, they could not accurately identify their population of crossover youth.


6-Month Agency Response

Alameda County stated that it will not provide any responses to the audit.

  • Estimated Completion Date:
  • Response Date: December 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

We stand by our recommendation that Alameda County's CWS and probation agencies should designate the data system they will use for tracking the dates and results of joint assessment hearings. As we noted on page 24 of our report, county staff could not accurately determine the total number of dependency cases with joint assessment hearings or the results of those hearings because they did not always track this information. As a result, they could not accurately identify their population of crossover youth.


60-Day Agency Response

Alameda County stated that it will not provide any responses to the audit.

  • Estimated Completion Date:
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Will Not Implement

We stand by our recommendation that Alameda County's CWS and probation agencies should designate the data system they will use for tracking the dates and results of joint assessment hearings. As we noted on page 24 of our report, county staff could not accurately determine the total number of dependency cases with joint assessment hearings or the results of those hearings because they did not always track this information. As a result, they could not accurately identify their population of crossover youth.


Recommendation #12 To: Kern County

To identify their population of dually involved youth, Kern County's CWS and probation agencies should designate the data system they will use for tracking the dates and results of joint assessment hearings.

60-Day Agency Response

Transmitted here within is the County of Kern's 60 day response of the efforts taken to implement the California State Auditor's recommendations included in the report entitled Dually Involved Youth. The response was a collaborative effort with each of the County departments that manage the operations. The County Administrative Office, Department of Human Services, and Probation Department collaborated and are in concurrence with this response.

KERN COUNTY'S IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSE

Kern County has fully implemented the recommendations made by the California State Auditor in its report entitled Dually Involved Youth. Prior to the audit Kern County was not tracking the outcomes of WIC 241.1 joint assessments. Now all joint assessment dispositions are entered in CWS/CMS. If the youth is found to be appropriate for wardship, Probation staff will enter the information. If dependency is appropriate, Probation staff will notify the Department of Human Services and their staff will enter the information. Kern's WIC 241.1 Memorandum of Understanding is in the process of being updated to reflect this change in procedure. Furthermore, both departments will ensure staff is trained to this new protocol moving forward. Probation Division Director William Dickinson (661-396-4501) is the contact staff responsible for this implementation.

  • Completion Date: April 2016
  • Response Date: April 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented

Kern County's compliance and accountability officer provided a copy of the county's revised WIC 241.1 Memorandum of Understanding, which highlights the requirement that county probation officers share the results of WIC 241.1 hearings with the county welfare services agency. In addition, the county's probation agency revised its placement manual to ensure that WIC 241.1 information is input into the statewide case management system.


Recommendation #13 To: Los Angeles County

To identify their population of dually involved youth, Los Angeles County's CWS and probation agencies should designate the data system they will use for tracking the dates and results of joint assessment hearings.

6-Month Agency Response

Los Angeles County will continue to utilize the existing 241.1 Court Application to track hearing dates and the results of joint assessment hearings.

  • Completion Date: February 2016
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented

Los Angeles County indicated that it has designated its 241.1 Court Application system for tracking the dates and results of joint assessment hearings.


60-Day Agency Response

Designate the data system that the Departments will use for tracking hearing dates and results of joint assessment hearings: Los Angeles County will continue to utilize the existing 241.1 Court Application to track hearings dates and the results of joint assessment hearings.

  • Estimated Completion Date: December 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Although Los Angeles' response indicates that it will use the existing 241.1 Court Application, it identified its implementation of the recommendation as "not fully implemented" because it is currently making changes to its system to address education data. Per Los Angeles, it will not fully implement this recommendation until December 2016.


Recommendation #14 To: Riverside, County of

To identify their population of dually involved youth, Riverside County's CWS and probation agencies should designate the data system they will use for tracking the dates and results of joint assessment hearings.

1-Year Agency Response

A dedicated Dual Status Excel spreadsheet for WIC 241.1 investigations has been developed to track referrals for investigation and the determination of the joint assessment hearing. The tracking spreadsheet can be used to determine the percentage of WIC 241.1 cases resulting in sustained petitions, tracking dates, and results/determinations of joint assessment hearings at any given point. Data analysis is conducted producing a Summary illustration from this tracking system which is shared with Probation.

Monthly joint CWS and Probation case staffing meetings are held to supplement the tracking system and enhance collaboration. Additionally, a protocol for collaboration to provide services for Dual Status youth in Riverside County is being updated which speaks to the sharing of information for data collection.

  • Completion Date: January 2016
  • Response Date: February 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented

Riverside County provided a copy of its Dual Status Excel spreadsheet for WIC 241.1 investigations, which it has designated for tracking the dates and results of joint assessment hearings. In addition, Riverside County provided its "Services for Non-Minor Dependents" symposium presentation, which demonstrates its ability to track and summarize results of its dual status population.


6-Month Agency Response

Given the identified limitations of the Child Welfare Services Case Management System (CWS/CMS) and lacking interconnectivity with the Juvenile and Adult Management System (JAMS), a dedicated Dual Status Excel spreadsheet has been developed to track referrals for investigation and the determination of the court for the 241.1 investigation. The youths' cases are reviewed monthly by a designated child welfare staff member. Data analysis is conducted and a monthly summary report is produced to share with management of the Department of Public Social Services (DPSS)/Children's Services Division (CSD) and Probation, partner agencies, and the Court.

The process for assigning investigations under WI&C 241.1 has been enhanced with joint training for DPSS and Juvenile Probation on April 14, 2016 and July 14, 2016. A section of the training was centered on ensuring that youth referred for investigation are adequately assessed. A modified referral for investigation process was implemented to properly identify youth that may crossover systems.

  • Estimated Completion Date: pending state
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

Per Riverside County's response, its implementation of this recommendation is currently pending.


60-Day Agency Response

Riverside County did not respond to our requests for its 60-day response.

  • Estimated Completion Date: Unknown
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

We look forward to Riverside County's 6-month response due on August 25, 2016.


Recommendation #15 To: Sacramento County

To identify their population of dually involved youth, Sacramento County's CWS and probation agencies should designate the data system they will use for tracking the dates and results of joint assessment hearings.

1-Year Agency Response

CPS has developed a process to record dates of joint assessment meetings in the Court Notebook of CWS/CMS, but CWS/CMS does not have the capacity to record the results of the meetings. Probation has developed an Excel spreadsheet that tracks both dates and results of the joint assessment meetings. Given the development of an Excel spreadsheet, Sacramento is no longer considering a shared software solution, as previously reported in prior responses. It is hoped that the new statewide Child Welfare Digital Services, which will replace CWS/CMS, would have more structured capability to document and track crossover youth.

  • Completion Date: February 2017
  • Response Date: February 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented

Sacramento County provided a copy of the Excel spreadsheet that it has designated as the system in which it will track joint assessment hearing dates and results.


6-Month Agency Response

Sacramento County concurs with the Auditor's report (pages 38-39) that the CDSS needs to implement a function within the CWS/CMS that will enable county CWS and probation agencies to identify dually involved youth. Currently, Sacramento County Probation and Child Welfare have not designated a single data system for tracking the dates and results of joint assessment hearings. Child Welfare is looking at internal business processes to determine how best to record 241.1 hearings in CWS/CMS but continues to document 241.1 information in court reports. Probation continues to use JPIP as their primary data system. Probation also records dates and results of joint assessments in notes. A data system change is required to have a single designated tracking system.

  • Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2018
  • Response Date: August 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

Per Sacramento's response, it will not fully implement this recommendation until June 30, 2018.


60-Day Agency Response

Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM) Data Committee is evaluating the viability of expanding the use of CWS/CMS for recording services as well as defining requirements for the development of a shared software solution to securely input and share data.

While we plan to complete our plan within a few months, securing funding for a data solution is yet to be secured.

  • Estimated Completion Date: June 30, 2017
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #16 To: Santa Clara County

To identify their population of dually involved youth, Santa Clara County's CWS and probation agencies should designate the data system they will use for tracking the dates and results of joint assessment hearings.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From December 2017

There is no one unified system identified by the State to document in the manner that is indicated in the report. CWS has a state-mandated database, and Probation uses a separate database for all cases, except for those cases involving placements, which are contained within the CWS database. In order for jurisdictions to have a required unified database, additional resources and more interoperability between the databases would be necessary.

In the meantime, Santa Clara County has developed expected outcomes and sixty-eight (68) data variables to track that are anticipated to speak to these outcomes. However, Santa Clara County is in the early data collection phase, and sufficient time has not yet elapsed to evaluate all of these expected outcomes.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

We stand by our recommendation that Santa Clara County's CWS and probation agencies should designate the data system they will use for tracking the dates and results of joint assessment hearings. By formally designating a data system for tracking information on joint assessment hearings, the county could better ensure the correct categorization of its dually involved youth.


1-Year Agency Response

Santa Clara County has declined to provide its 60-day response, 6-month response, and 1-year response to its dual status audit recommendations.

  • Estimated Completion Date:
  • Response Date: May 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

Despite our efforts to work with Santa Clara County, it has declined to provide any responses to the audit's recommendations.

We stand by our recommendation that Santa Clara County's CWS and probation agencies should designate the data system they will use for tracking the dates and results of joint assessment hearings. By formally designating a data system for tracking information on joint assessment hearings, the county could better ensure the correct categorization of its dually involved youth.


6-Month Agency Response

Santa Clara County did not provide a 6-month response; however, we look forward to Santa Clara County's 1-year response due on February 25, 2017.

  • Estimated Completion Date: Unknown
  • Response Date: November 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

Santa Clara County did not provide a 6-month response; however, we look forward to Santa Clara County's 1-year response due on February 25, 2017.


60-Day Agency Response

Santa Clara County requested a 30-day extension for its 60-day response, but it did not provide a response.

  • Estimated Completion Date: Unknown
  • Response Date: June 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

We look forward to Santa Clara County's 6-month response due on August 25, 2016.


Recommendation #17 To: Alameda County

To identify their population of dually involved youth, Alameda County's CWS and probation agencies should provide guidance or training to staff on recording joint assessment hearing information consistently within the designated system.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2017

When the "New System" database is complete Alameda County Department of Children and Family Services will provide training and guidance to their staff to insure all fields regarding joint assessment hearings will be adequately input.

  • Estimated Completion Date: TBD by CDSS

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Per Alameda County's response, its implementation of this recommendation is currently pending.


1-Year Agency Response

Alameda County stated that it will not provide any responses to the audit.

  • Estimated Completion Date:
  • Response Date: April 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

We stand by our recommendation to Alameda County's CWS and probation agencies that they should provide guidance or training to staff on recording joint assessment hearing information consistently within the designated system. As we noted on page 24 of our report, Alameda County could not accurately identify its population of crossover youth because it did not track the total number of cases with joint assessment hearings or the results of those hearings. As a result, any observations on how frequently the hearings result in youth's formal involvement with the juvenile system might be reflective of errors, rather than differences in the counties' processes. Thus, the State cannot perform a robust comparison between the population of dually involved youth in dual status and nondual status counties.


6-Month Agency Response

Alameda County stated that it will not provide any responses to the audit.

  • Estimated Completion Date:
  • Response Date: December 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

We stand by our recommendation to Alameda County's CWS and probation agencies that they should provide guidance or training to staff on recording joint assessment hearing information consistently within the designated system. As we noted on page 24 of our report, Alameda County could not accurately identify its population of crossover youth because it did not track the total number of cases with joint assessment hearings or the results of those hearings. As a result, any observations on how frequently the hearings result in youth's formal involvement with the juvenile system might be reflective of errors, rather than differences in the counties' processes. Thus, the State cannot perform a robust comparison between the population of dually involved youth in dual status and nondual status counties.


60-Day Agency Response

Alameda County stated that it will not provide any responses to the audit.

  • Estimated Completion Date:
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Will Not Implement

We stand by our recommendation to Alameda County's CWS and probation agencies that they should provide guidance or training to staff on recording joint assessment hearing information consistently within the designated system. As we noted on page 24 of our report, Alameda County could not accurately identify its population of crossover youth because it did not track the total number of cases with joint assessment hearings or the results of those hearings. As a result, any observations on how frequently the hearings result in youth's formal involvement with the juvenile system might be reflective of errors, rather than differences in the counties' processes. Thus, the State cannot perform a robust comparison between the population of dually involved youth in dual status and nondual status counties.


Recommendation #18 To: Kern County

To identify their population of dually involved youth, Kern County's CWS and probation agencies should provide guidance or training to staff on recording joint assessment hearing information consistently within the designated system.

60-Day Agency Response

Transmitted here within is the County of Kern's 60 day response of the efforts taken to implement the California State Auditor's recommendations included in the report entitled Dually Involved Youth. The response was a collaborative effort with each of the County departments that manage the operations. The County Administrative Office, Department of Human Services, and Probation Department collaborated and are in concurrence with this response.

KERN COUNTY'S IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSE

Kern County has fully implemented the recommendations made by the California State Auditor in its report entitled Dually Involved Youth. Prior to the audit Kern County was not tracking the outcomes of WIC 241.1 joint assessments. Now all joint assessment dispositions are entered in CWS/CMS. If the youth is found to be appropriate for wardship, Probation staff will enter the information. If dependency is appropriate, Probation staff will notify the Department of Human Services and their staff will enter the information. Kern's WIC 241.1 Memorandum of Understanding is in the process of being updated to reflect this change in procedure. Furthermore, both departments will ensure staff is trained to this new protocol moving forward. Probation Division Director William Dickinson (661-396-4501) is the contact staff responsible for this implementation.

  • Completion Date: April 2016
  • Response Date: April 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented

Kern County's compliance and accountability officer provided a copy of the county's revised WIC 241.1 Memorandum of Understanding, which highlights the requirement that county probation officers share the results of WIC 241.1 hearings with the county welfare services agency. In addition, the county's probation agency revised its placement manual to ensure that WIC 241.1 information is input into the statewide case management system. The county CWS agency provided guidance to its staff at a February 2016 meeting, while the county probation agency notified its staff informally. The probation agency will formally provide guidance to its staff in an August 2016 meeting.


Recommendation #19 To: Los Angeles County

To identify their population of dually involved youth, Los Angeles County's CWS and probation agencies should provide guidance or training to staff on recording joint assessment hearing information consistently within the designated system.

1-Year Agency Response

1. Designate the data system that the Departments will use for tracking hearing dates and results of joint assessment hearings: Los Angeles County will continue to utilize the existing 241.1 Court Application to track hearing dates and the results of joint assessment hearings.

2. Provide guidance or training to staff on recording joint assessment hearing information consistently within the designated system: Staff members within the Probation Department and Department of Children and Family Services have received guidance and training on recording joint assessment hearing information. However, in the course of retrieving the data requested, the County became aware of some discrepancies in the data contained within the 241.1 Court Application. This is attributed to the inability of each Department to see the entries/information entered by the other Departments. Accordingly, the County reprogrammed the database to allow the Department of Children and Family Services and the Probation Department to view each other's information. In addition, the Probation Department acts as the Lead Agency to enter the disposition date and outcome information to the database. The reprogramming did not negatively impact the County's ability to generate reports from the database or the data transfer for the research project led by Dr. Herz, California State University in Los Angeles. The County modified its training to address the updated program and data entry process and ensure that guidance and/or training is provided to staff as needed. Both Departments will review monthly quality assurance reports in order to ensure all dispositions and disposition dates are entered to the database.

On August 30, 2016, the 241.1 Application received the 2016 Excellence in Technology - Outstanding IT Project Award.

  • Completion Date: March 2017
  • Response Date: March 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented

Los Angeles County probation provided copies of the handouts and screenshots from its training that it provided to CWS and probation staff. The training materials show that staff can record information related to joint assessment hearings within the county's 241.1 Court Application system.


6-Month Agency Response

Staff within the Probation Department and Department of Children and Family Services have already received guidance and training on recording joint assessment hearing information. However, in the course of retrieving the data requested, the County became aware of some discrepancies in the data contained within the 241.1 Court Application. This is attributed to the inability of each Department to see the entries/information entered by the other Departments. Accordingly, the County is re-programming the database to allow the Department of Children and Family Services and the Probation Department to view each other's information. In addition, the Probation Department will act as the Lead agency to enter the disposition date and outcome information to the database. The reprogramming will not negatively impact the County's ability to generate reports from the database or the data transfer for the research project led by Dr. Herz, California State University in Los Angeles. The County will modify its existing training to address the updated program and data entry process and ensure that guidance and/or training is provided to staff as needed.

On August 30, 2016, the 241.1 Application received the 2016 Excellence in Technology - Outstanding IT Project Award.

  • Estimated Completion Date: 9/30/2016
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

Per Los Angeles County's response, it will not fully implement this recommendation until September 30, 2016.


60-Day Agency Response

Provide guidance or training to staff on recording joint assessment hearing information consistently within the designated system: Staff within the Probation Department and Department of Children and Family Services have already received guidance and training on recording joint assessment hearing information. However, in the course of retrieving the data requested, the County became aware of some discrepancies in the data contained within the 241.1 Court Application. This is attributed to the inability of each Department to see the entries/information entered by other Departments. Accordingly, the County plans to explore the possibility of allowing, at a minimum, the Department of Children and Family Services and the Probation Department to view each other's information. In addition, the County will determine whether there were any other factors which contributed to the discrepancies. Upon identifying and resolving all contributing factors, the County will modify its existing training to address the issues identified and ensure that guidance and/or training is provided to staff as needed.

  • Estimated Completion Date: December 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #20 To: Riverside, County of

To identify their population of dually involved youth, Riverside County's CWS and probation agencies should provide guidance or training to staff on recording joint assessment hearing information consistently within the designated system.

6-Month Agency Response

Training was provided to DPSS/CSD and Probation staff on April 14, 2016 and July 14, 2016 with both agencies presenting and learning together. Training was requested by the Presiding Judge and given jointly by DPSS and Probation for Bench Officers and attorneys September 9, 2016. An additional session is scheduled for October 14, 2016.

A designated child welfare staff reviews each Dual Status Youth's case records monthly to ensure the available CWS/CMS fields are completed along with other case-related variables. All active Dual Status cases are reviewed and tracked using the dedicated spreadsheet. Significant improvement has been realized in tracking the lead agency of record, hearing outcome, engagement in services, terms and conditions for placement, as well as separate and collaborative efforts to serve the youth. Trend data is prepared and shared to invested parties from DPSS and Probation and partner agencies.

Additional enhancements and collaborative efforts are well underway including joint DPSS and Probation executive management quarterly meetings; monthly manager level meetings to address concerns and issues in serving youth at risk of Dual Status; and monthly case reviews with supervisors from both agencies along with the impacted DPSS/CSD social worker and probation officer.

  • Completion Date: April 2016
  • Response Date: September 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented

Riverside County provided evidence of the joint training between DPSS/CSD and Probation Staff. It also provided a copy of the tracking log it uses to record joint assessment hearings and their results.


60-Day Agency Response

Riverside County did not respond to our requests for its 60-day response.

  • Estimated Completion Date: Unknown
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

We look forward to Riverside County's 6-month response due on August 25, 2016.


Recommendation #21 To: Sacramento County

To identify their population of dually involved youth, Sacramento County's CWS and probation agencies should provide guidance or training to staff on recording joint assessment hearing information consistently within the designated system.

1-Year Agency Response

Training has been provided to designated recording staff: A Senior Deputy Probation Officer is responsible for recording all 241.1 information into the Excel spreadsheet and will share and collaborate with the appropriate CPS staff to ensure accurate data is entered into the excel spreadsheet. Hearing dates continue to be recorded in CWS/CMS.

  • Completion Date: November 2016
  • Response Date: April 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented

Sacramento County CWS provided evidence that it trained its staff on recording joint assessment hearing information.


6-Month Agency Response

No change from 60-day response.

A workgroup has convened to update the 241.1 process, with an updated draft currently in discussion for further review. Citation hearings specifically for crossover youth are being address in the draft Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM) being reviewed by the CYPM Executive Team

  • Completion Date: September 2016
  • Response Date: August 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

Per Sacramento County's response, it will not fully implement this recommendation until September 30, 2016.


60-Day Agency Response

A workgroup has convened to update the 241.1 process, with an updated draft currently in discussion for further review. Citation hearings specifically for crossover youth are being address in the draft Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM) being reviewed by the CYPM Executive Team

  • Estimated Completion Date: September 30, 2016
  • Response Date: May 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending


Recommendation #22 To: Santa Clara County

To identify their population of dually involved youth, Santa Clara County's CWS and probation agencies should provide guidance or training to staff on recording joint assessment hearing information consistently within the designated system.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From December 2017

There is no one unified system identified by the State to document in the manner that is indicated in the report. CWS has a state-mandated database, and Probation uses a separate database for all cases, except for those cases involving placements, which are contained within the CWS database. In order for jurisdictions to have a required unified database, additional resources and more interoperability between the databases would be necessary.

In the meantime, Santa Clara County has developed expected outcomes and sixty-eight (68) data variables to track that are anticipated to speak to these outcomes. However, Santa Clara County is in the early data collection phase, and sufficient time has not yet elapsed to evaluate all of these expected outcomes.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

We stand by our recommendation that Santa Clara County's CWS and probation agencies should provide guidance or training to staff on recording joint assessment hearing information consistently within the designated system. By providing guidance or training to staff on recording joint assessment hearing information consistently within the designated system, the county could better ensure the correct categorization of its dually involved youth.


1-Year Agency Response

Santa Clara County has declined to provide its 60-day response, 6-month response, and 1-year response to its dual status audit recommendations.

  • Estimated Completion Date:
  • Response Date: May 2017

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

Despite our efforts to work with Santa Clara County, it has declined to provide any responses to the audit's recommendations.

We stand by our recommendation that Santa Clara County's CWS and probation agencies should provide guidance or training to staff on recording joint assessment hearing information consistently within the designated system. By providing guidance or training to staff on recording joint assessment hearing information consistently within the designated system, the county could better ensure the correct categorization of its dually involved youth.


6-Month Agency Response

Santa Clara County did not provide a 6-month response; however, we look forward to Santa Clara County's 1-year response due on February 25, 2017.

  • Estimated Completion Date: Unknown
  • Response Date: November 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

Santa Clara County did not provide a 6-month response; however, we look forward to Santa Clara County's 1-year response due on February 25, 2017.


60-Day Agency Response

Santa Clara County requested a 30-day extension for its 60-day response, but it did not provide a response.

  • Estimated Completion Date: Unknown
  • Response Date: June 2016

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

We look forward to Santa Clara County's 6-month response due on August 25, 2016.


All Recommendations in 2015-115

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.


Report type

Report type
















© 2013, California State Auditor | Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Download Adobe PDF Reader